Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,233
Real World Handgun Load Efficacy Data?
- Thread starter WrongHanded
- Start date
Today: "I said that I didn't remember where I got it, for one thing."
Before: "Honestly, at this point, I can't recall where I originally saw it."
Today: "Second, I provided Urey Patrick's statement in his paper that psychological stops made up a majority of stops."
Before: "Urey Patrick, in his paper says that psychological factors cause the majority of stops, but doesn't quote an exact figure. Which isn't the same saying that the number is 80%, but does confirm the general premise that psychological stops are a more significant factor in the outcome of handgun shootings than terminal effect."
I don't see any difference, but thanks for the refresher.
What I said was: "The 10mm vs 9mm data in the OSS results is an anomaly--we don't need to re-evaluate our starting premise in spite of the obvious contradiction."
I didn't say you were going to ignore it, I said that although you recognized it was an anomaly, you weren't going to re-evaluate your starting premise. And you haven't. You are still arguing that the M&S data is useful and in favor of the general idea that it's possible to do M&S type data sets and prove which loadings are best based on the results.
You have seen a lot, you just reject any of it that doesn't fit with your original premise. I posted links in the last thread with analyses by MacPherson, Fackler and others. Others have posted other similar information. That's absolutely legitimate evidence. You are not the final authority on what makes evidence legitimate--you can refuse to accept it, but that's not the same thing at all.
It is and you've done your due diligence. And your questions have been answered. What is NOT reasonable is to question all of that but without any possibility that the answers to the question will actually have any effect on your assessment. That makes it a pointless endeavor.
https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1995-Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf The study shows that most of the time the attack is stopped without the attacker even being hit. Hard to argue that terminal effect is the deciding factor when there's no injury at all. To be clear, I'm not arguing that people should build a self-defense strategy based on assuming the attacker will give up, just pointing out the fact that it often does happen that way.
Having re-read the study, I don't think that's where I got the "...something like 80%..." figure, although it does definitely show that the major factor in stopping attacks with a firearm is the attacker's predisposition to break off the attack at the first sign of a defender shooting back--even when not injured.
Since I can't find the study I read it from initially, let's back away from the characterization of: "..something like 80%..." and just stick with the easily supported assertion that psychological stops make up the majority of stops. It still shows that this type of data collection/analysis is going to be contaminated by an "...unwanted factor involved <which> will have significantly more effect on the overall outcome than the one we are trying to study."
OP
OP
WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
@JohnKSa
Clearly you're misremembering some things. Even when I quote you.
It sticks in my head that the figure came from one of Kleck's studies.
That was exactly what you said about the 80% figure. Not that it makes much difference.
And as far as the OSS data and 10mm vs 9mm, you may or may not have said it was an anomaly. But what I clearly remember you saying was that I had to choose between changing my beliefs or ignore the study, and that I wouldn't change my beliefs. I remember it, because I was surprised and insulted to that you would jump to that conclusion about me.
Anyhow, thanks for the link to the paper. I'll read it.
I think at this point, I'm feeling a lot of hostility and seeing a lot of language verging on personal attacks. So I'm going to opt out of this one, and go read that paper.
Clearly you're misremembering some things. Even when I quote you.
It sticks in my head that the figure came from one of Kleck's studies.
That was exactly what you said about the 80% figure. Not that it makes much difference.
And as far as the OSS data and 10mm vs 9mm, you may or may not have said it was an anomaly. But what I clearly remember you saying was that I had to choose between changing my beliefs or ignore the study, and that I wouldn't change my beliefs. I remember it, because I was surprised and insulted to that you would jump to that conclusion about me.
Anyhow, thanks for the link to the paper. I'll read it.
I think at this point, I'm feeling a lot of hostility and seeing a lot of language verging on personal attacks. So I'm going to opt out of this one, and go read that paper.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,233
It wasn't SWAT magazine, it was Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement magazine. Sorry for the misinformation.
Here's what I tracked down (from IWBA Wound Ballistics Review, V1N4, pp. 8-9, "FBI 1993 Wound Ballistics Seminar: Efficacy of Heavier Bullets Affirmed", Martin L. Fackler, M.D.:
"Harry Kane editor of Combat Handguns, invited and
published an article by SGT Steve Campbell, Firearms
Training Unit Supervisor, Lousiana State Police, and
SGT Mike Dunlap, Rangemaster of the Amarillo,
Texas, Police Department. Mr. Kane published their
article in Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement
("The 9 mm 147 sub-sonic is alive and well!" Sept
1993, pp. 14-1 6). This article by two experienced and
well-respected senior law enforcement firearms trainers
is a devastating exposure of Sanow's "anti-subsonic"
misinformation.'
published an article by SGT Steve Campbell, Firearms
Training Unit Supervisor, Lousiana State Police, and
SGT Mike Dunlap, Rangemaster of the Amarillo,
Texas, Police Department. Mr. Kane published their
article in Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement
("The 9 mm 147 sub-sonic is alive and well!" Sept
1993, pp. 14-1 6). This article by two experienced and
well-respected senior law enforcement firearms trainers
is a devastating exposure of Sanow's "anti-subsonic"
misinformation.'
fastbolt
Member
An arguable watershed year for defensive ammunition was 1991. Gold Dot, Golden Sabre and SXT Black Talon were released. Of course, the original all-lead Hydra-Shok was released in '88, when the FBI was starting the push for better performing ammunition. The FBI's search for better ammunition was also largely responsible for the big name ammo makers to debut their new JHP's in '91. Then came the beginning of the ongoing revisions and 'generations' of the new & improved JHP ammo.
Sure, revolver ammunition for full-size duty wheelguns can still be found in the older traditional designs, like the LHP, SJHP and STHP, but there's been ongoing revisions in that field, too. Both for hunting, as well as long and short-barreled application for self defense/service use. The short-barreled market has really opened up, helped along by the continued (and even increasing) interest in snub revolvers.
Considering the huge increase in both 'traditional' and many of the newer, 'modern' designs of defensive ammunition on today's market - in both LE/Gov and private owner segments - I'd think it would be even more difficult to presume to try and tally and categorize 'street results'. More difficult than when the market was just beginning to see newer designs, meaning the end of the 80's and the early 90's.
While the Public may have an interest in the 'latest & greatest' JHP's rolled out to market to LE/Gov, it's often the baseline of what's most affordable, and immediately available, that can drive selection for LE agencies. Especially among the smaller ones ... which actually make up more than 60% of the 18,000-odd LE agencies in the US. Big agencies can have big buying power, either for state contracts or individual bids. So, the wide breadth of ammunition in-service among all the LE agencies may make it an even more arduous task to try and pretend to have the ability to gather data on OIS results.
Then, there's always going to be the unavoidable little fact that despite the 'results', they're always more likely than not going to be affected by the human factors. The effectiveness of the humans to put the hits where they're most effective, and the way humans may react when suffering GSW's. Unpredictable is putting it mildly.
I haven't had any interest in anything touted as "data of ballistic effectiveness" since the mid 2000's, and then it was only in passing curiosity, when I stumbled across something new. Instead, I want to know if the JHP will expand in the normal tested barrier medium scenarios, and resist plugging ... and, will it feed and function in the guns my former agency used, and that I own.
Sure, revolver ammunition for full-size duty wheelguns can still be found in the older traditional designs, like the LHP, SJHP and STHP, but there's been ongoing revisions in that field, too. Both for hunting, as well as long and short-barreled application for self defense/service use. The short-barreled market has really opened up, helped along by the continued (and even increasing) interest in snub revolvers.
Considering the huge increase in both 'traditional' and many of the newer, 'modern' designs of defensive ammunition on today's market - in both LE/Gov and private owner segments - I'd think it would be even more difficult to presume to try and tally and categorize 'street results'. More difficult than when the market was just beginning to see newer designs, meaning the end of the 80's and the early 90's.
While the Public may have an interest in the 'latest & greatest' JHP's rolled out to market to LE/Gov, it's often the baseline of what's most affordable, and immediately available, that can drive selection for LE agencies. Especially among the smaller ones ... which actually make up more than 60% of the 18,000-odd LE agencies in the US. Big agencies can have big buying power, either for state contracts or individual bids. So, the wide breadth of ammunition in-service among all the LE agencies may make it an even more arduous task to try and pretend to have the ability to gather data on OIS results.
Then, there's always going to be the unavoidable little fact that despite the 'results', they're always more likely than not going to be affected by the human factors. The effectiveness of the humans to put the hits where they're most effective, and the way humans may react when suffering GSW's. Unpredictable is putting it mildly.
I haven't had any interest in anything touted as "data of ballistic effectiveness" since the mid 2000's, and then it was only in passing curiosity, when I stumbled across something new. Instead, I want to know if the JHP will expand in the normal tested barrier medium scenarios, and resist plugging ... and, will it feed and function in the guns my former agency used, and that I own.
Last edited:
That was only part of what I said. Here's the entire quote with emphasis added.
"You know, that's a good question. Honestly, at this point, I can't recall where I originally saw it. Urey Patrick, in his paper says that psychological factors cause the majority of stops, but doesn't quote an exact figure. It sticks in my head that the figure came from one of Kleck's studies. He was the one that found in the vast majority of cases the attacker didn't even need to be hit with a shot to stop the attack and that often when they were hit they stopped even though the injury was not debilitating."
Yes, I did say that I thought it might have been from one of Kleck's studies. After I first EXPLICITLY said a couple of sentences earlier that I couldn't recall where I originally saw it.
Ok, I went back and tried to figure out what was going on, because that sentence doesn't appear in your quote of the post I made. As nearly as I can tell, I was working on an edit of the post and you read and responded to the pre-edit version.
fastbolt
Member
Back when I was still serving as a LE instructor (stopped teaching at the end of '16), whenever I used to hear someone wanting to argue about caliber or ammunition choice, and we were standing on the range, I brought their attention back to their demonstrated skills ... and asked them how they expected a change in caliber or ammunition selection to improve their skills. Theoretical discussions - no matter how passionate - still have to be reconciled with hard facts in the light of day.
Facts can be pesky things, especially when they may conflict with preferred truths.
Facts can be pesky things, especially when they may conflict with preferred truths.
fastbolt
Member
Back when I was still serving as a LE instructor (stopped teaching at the end of '16), whenever I used to hear someone wanting to argue about caliber or ammunition choice, and we were standing on the range, I brought their attention back to their demonstrated skills ... and asked them how they expected a change in caliber or ammunition selection to improve their skills. Theoretical discussions - no matter how passionate - still have to be reconciled with hard facts in the light of day.
Facts can be pesky things, especially when they may conflict with preferred truths.
Don't get me wrong, though ...
When it came to those occasional folks who were able to demonstrate superior skills (controllability, accuracy, etc) using any of the commonly available calibers (we had 3 calibers in inventory at that time, and allowed a very wide selection for off-duty)? Well, if they expressed a desire to try and benefit from a perceived 1 or 2 % 'advantage' of one or another caliber, I didn't think it was my place to presume to gainsay them. I encouraged them to continue to maximize their skillsets, though. It's not like it's unusual for harder recoiling (and faster cycling) calibers to make more demands on most of us, in the way of either felt recoil, muzzle whip or muzzle blast, so continuing to put emphasis on skillset development is usually a good thing?
Now, if someone demonstrated that they suffered a noticeable degradation of their usual skills by switching to a different caliber? Well, while I might point it out to them, as long as they met the minimum competency requirements for qualification, it was their life and their responsibility. I'd already raised my own kids.
One thing that was interesting as the 9mm was beginning to receive renewed interest (once the FBI and other fed agencies were re-evaluating service calibers), was how even some previously fervent caliber enthusiasts among our training cadre were looking at switching to (or back to) 9mm for their issued weapon choices. Some of these instructors were longtime .45 fans and users, too. The common sentiment I heard was that no matter how well they could shoot their .45's (and .40's), they could do it faster, more controllably and just as accurately (in not more so) when running one of the 9's ... and they decided that having more rounds on their gun belts wasn't a disadvantage.
Well, alrighty then ...
Last edited:
Similar threads
